Research design and methods

The selection of the research design depends on the complexity of the questions we seek to answer through the research we aim to attempt (Yin 2014). A case study is the preferred design when the main research questions are “how” and “why”, when there is no control of the researcher over the events, and when the focus of the research is contemporary phenomena (Yin 2014). Based on the case study approach, individual cases were used to fulfill the research objectives specified for the study which investigates the phenomena of interactions within the larger context of forest governance and use rights in community forestry. The study uses previously established theoretical frameworks (for example, governance theory) to identify variables and propose research questions. Furthermore, using grounded theory approach (Corbin and Strauss 1990, Strauss and Corbin 1994), new observations were collected, and these observations were combined and contrasted with the initial theoretical propositions. Moreover, from the field observations, fragmented cases

were tied together to draw new insights, explanations and reasoning. This thesis adopted grounded theory (Corbin and Strauss 1990) as the main approach for data collection

Field research was initiated in April 2013 to obtain contextual, institutional and community level information. Unstructured key informant interviews and group interviews were conducted with academicians, bureaucrats, community forest user committee members, ordinary people and community-based organizations. These interviews helped to identify the institutions and actors involved in community forestry governance, their interests and actions. The basics for considering selected community forest user groups as case study sites was the composition of heterogeneous users in their community forest user group, implementation of climate change mitigation and adaptation interventions as a priority program, involvement of local people in forest governance, and implementation of livelihood promoting activities by the community forest user group targeting disadvantaged group members. In the next phase, more detailed information was obtained with methods that included document analysis, focus group discussions, in-depth interviews and participant observation.

3.2.1 Document analysis

Document analysis is a systematic way of examining, extracting and interpreting the content of documents in qualitative research (Bowen 2009). Document analyses are applicable to intensive studies of a single phenomenon or event, and produce rich descriptions of the case of study (Yin 1994, Stake 1995 as cited in Bowen 2009). Document analysis can be used as a qualitative research method on its own, but also often as a complement to other research methods and for data triangulation (Bowen 2009). In this study the method was used for the purpose of data triangulation and as a complement to focus group discussions and in-depth interviews.

A review of grey literature, both published and unpublished documents, was conducted to draw upon the background information. The grey literature was useful in identifying the context in which forest governance interventions were introduced and implemented, how the interventions were approached, and how the actors involved interacted. The minutes of the CFUG meetings, lists of users of community forests, display boards, community forest operational plans, CFUG constitutions and other filed records were used as data. The recorded information in the grey literature was also used to cross check the information obtained by other methods – for example, the involvement of different stakeholders, major decisions and leadership positions in the CFUG. Document analysis was done before the onset of field work until the end of field work, from April 2013 to November 2017.

3.2.2 Focus group discussions

Focus group discussions are a widely accepted method of qualitative research, which explores aspects of participants` engagement with their social and spatial worlds (Hopkins 2007) and provides understanding of group dynamics (Michel 1999). In focus group discussions, mutual experiences and understandings of participants are identified through exploring various aspects of participants’ involvement in different activities. For the study, through cluster random sampling, local level focus groups were identified based on well-being rank and other pre-identified criteria (gender, ethnicity) of the respective CFUGs to ensure variety of opinion but not statistical representation. Each household of the community forest under study was already classified by respective CFUG under certain

well-being ranks based on the local criteria such as employment status of family members, educational status, amount and types of land holding, annual income of each household, number and types of domestic animals owned, size and types of houses and other local criteria. Eight focus group discussions were organized in Kankali CFUG and in Sundari CFUG; four were based on well-being rank (the poor, medium class, rich and well-off) and the other four were based on other classifications of the users of the respective CFUGs, such as Dalit group, indigenous people group, women group and political leaders group so as to counter bias for under-representation that may have occurred during the criteria based on well-being rank only.

The focus group discussions were conducted from August to October 2013 and were facilitated by the researcher using an open-ended questionnaire to guide the discussions.

The role of the researcher was as observer who did not intervene the interactions but facilitated when the discussion drifted off the subject matter. The focus group discussions lasted between one to three hours and 16 focus group discussions were held that included 189 representatives ranging from 4 to 22 individuals in a group. The discussions were conducted in the local language (Nepali) and effort was made to ensure that every individual in the group delivered his/her opinion on the subject matter. In the focus group discussions, participants were initially asked to discuss the impact of REDD+ in community forestry governance. The participants were more general in these discussions, and discussed every issue related to forest governance: benefit sharing, transparency and accountability within the CFUG. The discussions also focused on how the trend of forest governance was shifting from just participation to individual responsibilization in mitigating climate change impacts. With the prior permission of the participants, the discussions were audio recorded and were later transcribed and translated to English. The transcriptions were analyzed using NVivo 10 software.

3.2.3 In-depth key informant interviews

Key informant interviews provide more detailed access to participants’ feelings, understanding and experiences of the case in question (Michel 1999). Following the focus group discussions, semi-structured face-to-face in-depth interviews were conducted with the users of community forests to gain deeper understanding of community forest governance, the benefit sharing process and the involvement of household level users.

Semi-structured interviews provided the respondents with greater flexibility to explain the actual situation, and face-to-face interviews provided an opportunity even to interview illiterate users of community forests who were actively involved in forest conservation. The interviewees in this study were purposively selected, based on the users’ role and experiences in community forest management and forest products utilization. These interviewees included different members of the society who were directly affected by community forestry policies and governance and also represented both the social and economic diversity of the society, including women, Dalits, indigenous people, poor class, medium class and rich class users. The well-being ranking was based on the local criteria and indicators adopted by the CFUGs. The indicators of well-being rank adopted by the CFUGs were total area and types of land holding, employment status of household members, education, livestock holding, types of houses owned, vehicles and other assets.

Interviewees were also representatives of political parties, local leaders, governmental and NGO employees, and executive and ordinary members of CFUGs. A total of 103 interviews were conducted between 2014 to 2017 in two CFUGs – Kankali CFUG and Janapragati

Table 1: Summary of the interviewees

CFUG (see Table 1 for a summary of the interviewees). Interviews were conducted in the local language (Nepali) by the author and were audio recorded with prior permission of the interviewees. The research assistant transcribed the recordings which were then translated into English for further analysis.

3.2.4 Participant observation

Participant observation is a way of collecting data through observing the participants while they are involved in different activities, talking with them and experiencing how they understand their world (Delamont 2004). In participatory observation, researchers spend a long time in the field studying the interactions of the people, thinking carefully of what is seen and interpreting it in the light of the question of study (Delamont 2004). Participant observation revels insights that are difficult to capture merely through interviews (Ayana 2014). Participant observation was partly used in this thesis. During different times from 2013 to 2017, the author stayed more than five months in the field interviewing community forest users, conducting focus group discussions and observing community members participating in community forestry activities. Based on these participant observations, field notes were prepared and later analyzed during the course of data analysis and thesis work.

During the field work, the author visited every sampled household to conduct key informant interviews. During the household visits, attention was paid to observe the types of support received by individual households from the CFUGs and the status of the household. The participation of representatives of different socio-economic groups in community meetings, in community forestry development activities and decision-making processes was observed. The informal interaction with the villagers, their concerns in community forestry governance and critiques of implementation of REDD+ pilot projects provided useful information for the study. The involvement of the author in all data collection processes provided additional opportunities for participant observation.